Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Was there a period of time when the bronze casket was left alone at Parkland long enough for JFK's body to be witched to a shipping casket?

I couldn't find one. As I said, " I was not able to find a time when Jackie left JFK's body long enough for a switch to be made at Parkland."

But I wondered to myself if that's what the big fight in the hallway was all about. I wondered if the bronze casket was empty at that point.

No there wasn't. And even if there had been, as I mentioned above, what exactly were they trying to "alter?" The official story had not even come out yet, Steve. So how would they even know what to cut up? Humes, who I have a low opinion of, didn't even know there was a throat GSW until TX told him. If there had been alteration, don't you think they'd want to make the throat GSW obvious so they can some how link the back and throat together? It's common sense, Steve.

As I said above, the back wound was completely left alone and it proves two things 1) it terminated there, meaning when Humes stuck his finger in it stopped; 2) the supposed downward trajectory would have caused an exit wound nowhere near the throat.

So why didn't these supposed Mad Doctors try to cover this up during their so-called alteration session?

The answer is simple - it never happened. And no one - to this day - has EVER come forward to say "yeah, they squirreled away the body and altered it. I saw it." Not a one person.

Lifton and Horne (apple and orange) go by 2nd generation statements made years after the fact and of twisting the record, and by playing whack a mole.

Even today, Lifton's so-called new theory is that Perry never cut into the throat wound "proving" alteration. Really? And where is he getting this? From one single word spoken in a '67 TV interview. Meanwhile, Perry went into great detail of cutting into the wound when he testified in '64. I mean, Lifton is trying to get back on the NY Times best-seller list again with his upcoming new book and no doubt Dave Healy, one of his fan boys, will be first in line to get an autographed copy of it. I mean...really Steve? Do you not see it?

Do you really think, as the plane landed in DC, that a thrumming copter was behind the plane with Marine guards standing at the ready pulling a body bag from the rear door of the plane and throwing it onto the copter? In full view of live TV cameras while the entire nation was watching? Even as Jackie and Bobby are climbing down from that transport to get into the hearse? Do you really think they would have taken this extraordinarily huge risk to do this?

Kennedy was gunned down, taken to the hospital, the TX doctors tried to save him, it didn't work out, TX wanted to do the autopsy, the SS, pissed because they xxxxed up, fought them, the body was taken to Love, arrived in DC, autopsied at Bethesda, and that was it. That's all that happened.

Then the big charade started with the WC to sweep it all under the rug. It's not that hard to figure out, Steve.

Share on other sites

Steve (and all others who may be interested in the "Air Force One" problem, and, in general, the details re the chain of possession of JFK's body after it left Parkland Hospital [at about 2 PM CST], and prior to its arrival at Bethesda for the autopsy [which officially commenced at 8 PM EST]):

No, I don't remember when we spoke. . that was a long time ago.

Now, about the goings-on in and around Air Force One, when it was parked at Love Field (and which was the site of the swearing in of LBJ at 2:38 PM CST) and which didn't take off until 2:47 PM CST.

FYI: Based on my present understanding and much interviewing, the body bag (and the shipping casket) were introduced in connection with the arrival of Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, at about 6 P.M. EST. (There was no body bag or shipping casket, earlier. Details to follow in Final Charade.).

Going back to Web Page 32 on this thread: For a detailed exposition of the "where and when" problem, go to Web Page 32 of this thread, and the long post that I wrote (dated March 15th), with the section labeled "The Where and When problem, Reconsidered." Keep in mind that if JFK's body arrived 20 minutes before the coffin, at the Bethesda end of the line (which it did, based on the accounts of Dennis David [Ch. 25 of B.E.], Don Rebentisch [see 1982 Epilogue to B.E., a witness who completely corroborates Dennis David, and was just as important] and documentary evidence [i.e., the Boyajian receipt, unearthed by the ARRB investigation, which records the arrival time as 18:35 (6:35 PM EST)], then the the body must have been removed from the Dallas coffin prior to the take-off of AF-1 in Dallas. This inference, or "conclusion," is just logic, and is discussed in detail in Chapter 25 of B.E. It is based on the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda and the simple fact that (as explained in detail in Chapter 25) Jacqueline Kennedy and one or more Kennedy aides (e.g., Kenneth O'Donnell) were always with the Dallas coffin from the time of the Dallas take-off (2:48 PM CST) until the time of the Bethesda arrival (6:53 PM EST, referring here to Jackie's arrival at the Bethesda front entrance, along with RFK, in the naval ambulance). Consequently, if the body arrived (at Bethesda) in a shipping casket some 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin, then the Dallas coffin must have been empty. This analysis leads to an unavoidable conclusion: "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance means an empty coffin upon take-off from Dallas." I can't go further than that, until Final Charade is published.

But one additional fact should be noted.

Johnson's Arrival at Air Force One: According to Secret Service reports, Lyndon Johnson left Parkland Hospital (accompanied by SS Agent Rufus Youngblood) at !:26 PM CST, and that event, showing the two of them exiting, was photographed. He (and Youngblood) arrived at Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST. LBJ was driven from Parkland Hospital to Love Field by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Traveling a short distance behind (i.e., in a separate police car) was DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence, 52, a 19 year veteran of the DPD and a captain in the Traffic Division. His chief passenger was Ladybird Johnson. I conducted a detailed, professionally filmed interview of Captain Lawrence in the summer of 1990. One of the more interesting statements he made concerned his observations as to what was occurring as Curry's car (carrying LBJ) and his own (carrying Ladybird) had entered Love Field and were approaching Air Force One. He saw people scurrying down the ramp(s) and carrying seats off the airplane. At first he was puzzled. "I knew they were making room for something," he told me. (All of this is on camera). And then, of course, it became obvious what the "something" was: that the coffin containing JFK's body would be brought to Air Force One. As the record shows, LBJ (followed by Ladybird) ran up the stairs to AF-1 at 1:40 PM.

What This Implies: That the plan to remove JFK's body from the coffin that was to be placed aboard AF-1 was hatched back at Parkland Hospital, when LBJ made it a point to tell JFK's top aide, Kenneth O'Donnell, that he was leaving for Love Field, and leaving O'Donnell with the clear impression that he would be promptly leaving for Washington (aboard his own plane, AF-2). In other words, when the Kennedy group arrived at Love Field (led by SS Agent Kellerman), they (Jackie, O'Donnell, Gen. McHugh, etc.) were thoroughly unaware ("disarmed" if you will) and believed they would have AF-1 "all to themselves" (my quotes) for the trip back to Washington. That, of course, was based on what Johnson had said (and led them to believe) back at Parkland Hospital, before he departed for Love Field.

But that's not what Johnson did (which raises the question of whether he was involved in a deliberate deception).

What Johnson Did. Instead, and immediately upon entering the plane (AF-1), Johnson personally began hurriedly closing all the windows on the plane (lowering their plastic coverings) and pulling all the drapes shut, and demanding assistance from others, so this could be done expeditiously, throughout the plane. He then made a beeline for the cockpit and instructed the pilot (Col. Swindal) that there would be no takeoff without his say so, and that they would be waiting for "the widow and the body". (Verbatim, from SS reports, and Colonel Swindal's account).

What Happened Next: As to what happened next, and here I am referring to the very public (and well photographed) on-load of the Dallas coffin, at the rear port door, followed by the covert (and almost immediate) offload of JFK's body (on the starboard side, and onto a forklift truck). Only the first event was photographed. The Secret Service prevented photography on the starboard side, and threatened to arrest a Texas Highway Patrolman who had a camera, and was trying to film. (Source: Interview with patrolman). The offload took place within a minute or two, once the Dallas coffin was placed aboard [between 2:14 PM and 2:18 PM], the times given here according to the official Secret Service chronology.

For details about how this happened (i.e., the actual "mechanics" at Love Field, prior to take-off), note (i.e., "Go To") the breaker on my post which appears on Web Page 32 of this thread, with the label indicating "another" period when Jackie (et al) weren't with the coffin. That state of affairs (on the port side) was actually photographed by White House photographer Stoughton, from his vantage point standing at the top of the forward port-side staircase, as Kellerman and his clique of agents carried the coffin up the rear ramp. Those pictures--or at least some of them---were published in the late 1960s.

July-Aug. 1980: The Stoughton Photos and my discovery of the "wink" photograph

FYI: I obtained these photos (from the LBJ Library) in the summer of 1980, and was the first person to publish the entire set, in Best Evidence (released in mid-January, 1981). By the "entire set," I deliberately mean to include the (now infamous) "wink photograph" (showing Houston Congressman Al Thomas, who played a major role in inducing JFK to make the Texas trip, winking at Johnson, during the swearing in). I discovered this remarkable photo within days of receiving the package of photos from the LBJ Library, and I immediately showed it to Macmillan's top executives. They agreed to include this particular photo in the about-be-published book, along with a neutral caption, and that's how the "wink photograph" (as it is now known) came to be published. I also promptly interviewed --in detail, and by telephone--photographer Stoughton, then living in Florida. Stoughton was astounded that I had that particular picture, angrily demanded to know how I had obtained it, was very surprised that my source was the LBJ Library, and then--finally--calmed down and related to me his own experiences with that picture.

What Stoughton Told me by phone: He had immediately seen the wink photograph, when his pictures were processed on 11/22, and arranged a personal meeting with RFK (within a day) and showed him the picture. It was too late to include any of this (Stoughton's account) in the hardcover edition of Best Evidence, but I did discuss my experiences, and in detail, when I appeared on certain talk shows (e.g., the Larry King radio show, on which I appeared for at least two hours, circa Jan-March, 1981) and will include all of this in Final Charade, and/or in an epilogue to an e-book release of Best Evidence, which is currently in the planning stages .

Now back to Air Force One, on 11/22/63, and what happened at Love Field . . .

What we don't have (of course) is a photo of (or a direct eyewitness to) what happened once the Dallas coffin was actually inside the plane, and during the brief period before Jackie (et al) were given the "green light" that it was OK to come on board. Also, and in the spirit of FYI: At the time the Dallas coffin was brought up the portable stairway at the rear port door and then into the tail compartment of AF-1, Johnson was in the tail compartment, "helping" (according to one USAF witness), but not visible through the open rear port door. So the Kennedy group, standing down on the tarmac, were completely unaware that LBJ was on "their airplane," Bottom line: there's no "Zapruder film" of the event, but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that that's when it (the covert offload) occurred. The presence of a fork-lift truck on the starboard side (witnessed by the pilot of Air Force II, who I interviewed about this), and the logic of the "sequence of arrivals" at the Bethesda end of the line, is the key to understanding what occurred at Love Field.

Now changing the subject just a bit. . . :

Re the "hallway fight" at Parkland.. . : That had nothing to do with getting the body out of the Dallas coffin. That had everything to do with preventing a Dallas autopsy; i.e., getting the body out of Parkland Hospital (and then out of Dallas), without an autopsy (as required by state law). The President's body was not removed from the original coffin at Parkland Hospital. Again: that event occurred at Air Force One, after the coffin was brought up the rear port "on-ramp", placed in the tail compartment, moved around a bit, and then "fastened" with straps. Only then was Jackie (and the other Kennedy aides) given the green light to ascend the stairs. It was doing that brief period--while Jackie (and the rest of the Kennedy party) were down on the tarmac, and before Jackie entered the aircraft--that the Dallas coffin was opened, the body hurriedly and (in effect covertly) removed via the rear starboard door, and placed on a forklift truck. Photography on the starboard side was not permitted, and one photographer, shooting with a telephoto lens from the roof of a nearby structure, was spotted doing so, had the misfortune of having his camera (and film) confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Police Chief as soon as he descended a ladder from his perch. His camera, but not his film, was later returned to him. He was told that what he had filmed was "sacrilegious," but he didn't see to understand what he may have filmed, or why that term was used. What upset him was that both his film and camera were confiscated, and that he never got his film back. (Source: DSL interview with photographer, 11/22/1998).

The pilot of AF-2 witnessed the activity on the starboard side of AF-1, witnessed the fork lift truck, and I interviewed him at length, back in 1980. A clique of Secret Service agents (also) know all about what happened on AF-1, and the "national security" rationale (apparently offered by LBJ) for removing the body from the coffin and placing it "elsewhere" on Air Force One.

Johnson's Whereabouts on Air Force One: Also (and again, in the spirit of "fyi"): Shortly after the "unload" (or "offload") was complete, and when the Kennedy party had ("finally") boarded, and Jackie (and others) were actually seated in the tail compartment, General McHugh--still unaware that LBJ was aboard what the Kennedy's considered "their" airplane--could not understand why there was not a prompt take-off. So McHugh, quite agitated, went forward to the cockpit. As described by Manchester, the pilot (Swindal) told McHugh that Johnson was on board, that he (LBJ) was now the president, and that he had given the order not to take off (yet). All this is spelled out in Manchester's 1967 book "The Death of a President." McHugh and O'Donnell then went looking for Johnson, who they (mistakenly) believed had already departed for Washington, on "his" airplane (AF-2).

So where was Johnson? What follows is not in Manchester's book, but is in HSCA interview reports and in a radio interview with McHugh broadcast in the early 1970s. McHugh and O'Donnell found Johnson at the rear of the plane, apparently hiding in the bathroom connected with the presidential bedroom. He was hidden behind a curtain and excitedly exclaimed to McHugh (and Kenneth O'Donnell, who was with him): "Leave me alone!! (or "Get out of here!"). The Secret Service told me to hide in here! There's a worldwide conspiracy!" LBJ, according to McHugh was very panicky. As noted, this incident is detailed in HSCA interview reports of McHugh, and in a detailed radio interview of McHugh on CBC, back in the early 1970s. Further details can be supplied; and I do remember the name of the show: a very detailed radio documentary titled "Thou Shalt Not Kill." (Its a well known interview to JFK researchers.)

Johnson's Changed Shirt. When Johnson emerged from the bathroom, and was next seen in the Stateroom for the swearing in, it was noted (by JFK aide Larry O'Brien, in his memoir No Final Victories) that Johnson had changed his shirt. So much for the goings-on aboard Air Force One. Admiral Burkley was noted with blood on his sleeves. (He later told Manchester that that was the result of his having reached into a trash can at Parkland Hospital, to retrieve a rose to give to Mrs. Kennedy, as a souvenir.)

The lack of a proper investigation. If the Warren Commission--not to mention the FBI--had interviewed the people I and an associate managed to locate and interview, and done the kind of detailed analytic work that I have done with timelines and chronology, there would not be so much mystery about what happened aboard Air Force One in the period between the 2:05 PM arrival of the ambulance, with the coffin, from Parkland; through the coffin unload (2:14 to 2:18, according to SS reports), and then the swearing in (2:38 PM), and--finally--the take-off of AF-1 from Dallas, which occurred at 2:47 PM CST. ( Its not "rocket science".) This whole period is discussed in Chapter 31 of Best Evidence, based on what I knew by April 1, 1980, the final due date for the Best Evidence manuscript. But I know more about it today, and additional details will be included in Final Charade.

* * *

As far as Walton is concerned, you can ignore just about everything he says. He seems to repeat the same points, over and over, posing questions that have already been addressed (as if his repeated posts make what he has to say valid) , behaving like a slow-witted learner who constantly raises his hand, asks absurd questions, and drags an entire class down. He presents as an ignoramus, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be that dense. I think he's motivated by a certain degree by malice, plus an apparent need to call attention to himself, no matter how absurd his comments and observations. Most of his posts appear to be a juvenile effort to weaponize his own (supposed) stupidity.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I mean no disrespect to David Josephs, in posting this notice about my own writing.

I simply want to point out that the essay that I wrote just prior to this post (scroll up, just one item) represents an effort to present, in one post, a rather complete and up-to-date summary of my views of what was going on at Love Field on the afternoon of 11/22/63, starting when Johnson boarded Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST, and extending through the time the plane departed Love Field to Washington (2:47 PM CST). By "up-to-date summary," I'm referring to the fact that much of the information in the above writing was developed in the years since the original release of Best Evidence in January 1981. That, and more, will be presented in Final Charade.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fingers-crossed. Thanks for taking the time & trouble to run this piece down.

I received a file today from my friends in Tennessee with the front page and the jump page of the March 30, 1967 issue of the Lebanon Democrat. It appears, however, they merely shot a photo of the pages from a Microfilm reader. I'm trying to get them printed out to where they are readable and if so I will transcribe.

I can't seem to upload the JPEGs of the pages because they are too big. I've never tried to upload anything here before. Any hints on doing that would be appreciated.

It seems the the doctor was the speaker at the local Rotary Club meeting the previous day and claimed the president was shot from the front.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I received a file today from my friends in Tennessee with the front page and the jump page of the March 30, 1967 issue of the Lebanon Democrat. It appears, however, they merely shot a photo of the pages from a Microfilm reader. I'm trying to get them printed out to where they are readable and if so I will transcribe.

I can't seem to upload the JPEGs of the pages because they are too big. I've never tried to upload anything here before. Any hints on doing that would be appreciated.

It seems the the doctor was the speaker at the local Rotary Club meeting the previous day and claimed the president was shot from the front.

Here's how the article Reads (It's a shame there was no elaboration on several points):

Lebanon Democrat, Thursday, March 30, 1967:

JFK shot from front speaker tells Rotary

"The President of the United States was definitely shot from the front and this fact has been covered up by the Warren Commission and the family," Dr. David Stewart told the Lebanon Rotary Club Tuesday at its noon luncheon.

Dr. Stewart, who now lives and practices medicine in Gallatin, was on duty and one of the attending physicians at Dallas' Parkland Hospital when President John Kennedy was brought there on November 22, 1964 (sic).

Another thing kept secret was the fact that the President could have possibly been suffering from Addison's Disease.

"Because of the actions of the President's White House physician on the trip with him, we at Parkland felt that the President was suffering from this," Dr. Steart said.

The Doctor was quite critical of the apparent coverups by the family and Bethesda Naval Hospital. He said there were many things overlooked by the Warren Commission when they investigated and that the whole, complete story has never been told. He quoted the Warren Commission as saying in Texas that it might possibly be seventy-five years before the complete story is known.

"If the family and the naval hospital will hide certain facts that we at Parkland know about, then it is certain they will hide other facts," he added. To illustrate this point he noted that certain files were destroyed, x-ray films disappeared and the family was given custody over the autopsy reports.

Before the President's visit Parkland was chosen as the hospital to be used in case there was a need while in Dallas.
"Just as soon as the President was shot, they knew exactly what to do and where to go," Dr. Stewart said. At the time the President was brought to Parkland, about lunch time, all of the chiefs of departments were on hand. "There was no lack of competent help," he said and added "If it had been fifteen minutes later, it might have been a different story."

He described in detail the wounds President Kennedy received. He told the club the President had three visible wounds and was in a desperate condition. "He was not dead when he arrived at Parkland and our main objective was to clear the airway which we did and to stop the hemorrhaging. However, before the hemorrhaging could be stopped, the President died," Dr. Stewart said.

The wound in the left front was definitely entered from the front, Dr. Stewart said. One of the basics for diagnosing the frontal entry was the fact that tissue and brain particle was found on the motorcycle officer who was to the rear of the Presidential car. "Why they have never said anything about this is hard for us to understand," and added "That much has been covered up in the entire matter." He also noted that all of this was told to the Warren Commission but apparently they weren't interested in it.

OTHER DETAILS he commented on like this:

That he helped take care of Governor Connally and that he was shot separately and apart from any bullet that struck the president.

Original notes at Parkland have been destroyed by fire. After the President had left each doctor on duty wrote in long hand his account of the activities at Parkland.

That Oswald was on the way by the most direct route to see Jack Ruby when he was (sic) killed by Officer TIppit. Oswald was later shot by Ruby and he too was brought to Parkland where he died.

He said that Attorney General Jim Garrison's probe into the Kennedy assassination is a fraud.

Dr. Stewart was introduced by a former classmate, Dr. James Bradshaw of Lebanon. A question and answer period followed the speech by Dr. Stewart.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here's how the article Reads (It's a shame there was no elaboration on several points):

Lebanon Democrat, Thursday, March 30, 1967:

JFK shot from front speaker tells Rotary

"The President of the United States was definitely shot from the front and this fact has been covered up by the Warren Commission and the family," Dr. David Stewart told the Lebanon Rotary Club Tuesday at its noon luncheon.

Dr. Stewart, who now lives and practices medicine in Gallatin, was on duty and one of the attending physicians at Dallas' Parkland Hospital when President John Kennedy was brought there on November 22, 1964 (sic).

Another thing kept secret was the fact that the President could have possibly been suffering from Addison's Disease.

"Because of the actions of the President's White House physician on the trip with him, we at Parkland felt that the President was suffering from this," Dr. Steart said.

The Doctor was quite critical of the apparent coverups by the family and Bethesda Naval Hospital. He said there were many things overlooked by the Warren Commission when they investigated and that the whole, complete story has never been told. He quoted the Warren Commission as saying in Texas that it might possibly be seventy-five years before the complete story is known.

"If the family and the naval hospital will hide certain facts that we at Parkland know about, then it is certain they will hide other facts," he added. To illustrate this point he noted that certain files were destroyed, x-ray films disappeared and the family was given custody over the autopsy reports.

Before the President's visit Parkland was chosen as the hospital to be used in case there was a need while in Dallas.
"Just as soon as the President was shot, they knew exactly what to do and where to go," Dr. Stewart said. At the time the President was brought to Parkland, about lunch time, all of the chiefs of departments were on hand. "There was no lack of competent help," he said and added "If it had been fifteen minutes later, it might have been a different story."

He described in detail the wounds President Kennedy received. He told the club the President had three visible wounds and was in a desperate condition. "He was not dead when he arrived at Parkland and our main objective was to clear the airway which we did and to stop the hemorrhaging. However, before the hemorrhaging could be stopped, the President died," Dr. Stewart said.

The wound in the left front was definitely entered from the front, Dr. Stewart said. One of the basics for diagnosing the frontal entry was the fact that tissue and brain particle was found on the motorcycle officer who was to the rear of the Presidential car. "Why they have never said anything about this is hard for us to understand," and added "That much has been covered up in the entire matter." He also noted that all of this was told to the Warren Commission but apparently they weren't interested in it.

OTHER DETAILS he commented on like this:

That he helped take care of Governor Connally and that he was shot separately and apart from any bullet that struck the president.

Original notes at Parkland have been destroyed by fire. After the President had left each doctor on duty wrote in long hand his account of the activities at Parkland.

That Oswald was on the way by the most direct route to see Jack Ruby when he was (sic) killed by Officer TIppit. Oswald was later shot by Ruby and he too was brought to Parkland where he died.

He said that Attorney General Jim Garrison's probe into the Kennedy assassination is a fraud.

Dr. Stewart was introduced by a former classmate, Dr. James Bradshaw of Lebanon. A question and answer period followed the speech by Dr. Stewart.

Fascinating - sincere thanks.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Andrew Prutsok: Thanks for finding and distributing this article about Dr. Dave Stewart. And to Paul Rigby for also distributing it. I am working with an archivist in Tennessee attempting to locate the major article in the Nashville Banner that --I believe (based on 30 year old recollection, was a front page item)--preceded this one. In the article that I vividly remember, and which is (unfortunately) located in a file in a storage box, Dr. Stewart's main point was that (based on conversations with Perry on 11/22) Dr. Perry did not have to make an incision, and simply "pushed the tube" through the pre-existing bullet hole (something along those lines). I carefully photocopied, and filed that Nashville Banner article; unfortunately, its in "storage." But that article led to my original interest in Dr. Stewart, who I interviewed in detail by phone in 1982, and then came the hour long (at least) professionally filmed interview at his home in Tennessee (with Pat Valentino present) in June of 1989; and then (one or two days later) the multi-hour visit with Groden at his home in Media, PA (alng with a multi-hour filmed interview of Groden) at which time (but not during our actual interview, with the camera running) he played for us an excellent 3/4" copy of the Perry interview, by Barker, in which Perry clearly and unequivocally stated that he left the wound "inviolate.". I'm postponing further comment on all this until I can (hopefully) locate the original article in the Nashville Banner.

With one exception: Pat Valentino has pointed out another possibility (and I hadn't thought of this until recently): That Groden's 3/4" video of Perry--a very special item that he had "obtained" from someone at CBS, and very early on--was so clear compared to what's available today (via the Internet) --and which is "muddled" and is subject to interpretation as to which word was being spoken (i.e., "inviolate" or "invalid") that its entirely possible that there was further hanky panky with the audio record of this interview in the years following. In other words, there is the possibility that Groden obtained his very special (and very clear) 3/4" copy of the CBS tape (which he played for us in June 1989, but obviously had possessed for many years previously); and then came another round of messing around with that tape, perhaps (for example) in connection with the 1993 CBS documentary on JFK's assassination produced by Dan Rather in 1993.

So among all the things that Groden may have "obtained" and stored away --somewhere--is this very special (and very early) copy of the Barker/Perry interview, in which the word "inviolate" is clearly (and quite unequivocally) audible.

It is pretty obvious that this particular sentence that Perry spoke received some special attention (over the years) since the official CBS transcript that I received from CBS in New York back in 1967 (and which is on file at the Gerald Ford library) uses the word "inviolate", whereas Steve White's book (which was published in 1968, which means it was likely written in late 1967/early 1968, and which I just ordered from Amazon recently) has the identical transcript, except for one word: "invalid" (instead of "inviolate").

FWIW: White--who died many years ago--was the senior writer on the CBS program. So he took what he was given, and then wrote the script. And his book, by the way, is really good. It documents the path he took in arriving at the conclusion that the Warren Report just had to be correct. ("Should we NOW believe the Warren Report?" was the title). Of course, White had no idea that there was a pile of evidence that the autopsy had been falsified (as a document); with the one published in the Warren Report being the third version (as documented in Horne's book); or worse, that JFK's body had been altered prior to autopsy (my thesis, as originally published in Best Evidence, first published in January 1981; and with 3 different publishers after that. And there will be another publisher, plus an e-book, coming).

IMHO: The persons responsible for "playing around" with the audio record are Dan Rather (who produced the CBS programs) and Eddie Baker (who conducted the original 1966 interview). Anyone reading this please note: There weren't any gremlins who fooled around with this record. There were real people who sat at editing machinery and --whatever the rationale provided--wanted to make the word "inviolate" go away, and make it sound like (or close to) "invalid." (And, unfortunately, they succeeded in fuzzing up this issue). But remember what was said years ago, "Truth is the daughter of time," and that's what's going to happen in this case.

DSL; 4/2/2018; 4:40 PM PDT

Edited April 3 by David Lifton

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anyone reading this please note: There weren't any gremlins who fooled around with this record. There were real people who sat at editing machinery and --whatever the rationale provided--wanted to make the word "inviolate" go away, and make it sound like (or close to) "invalid." (And, unfortunately, they succeeded in fuzzing up this issue).

And around and around in circles we go (again), with Mr. Lifton apparently (again) totally ignoring the following facts that were discussed about a month ago. Quoting from my previous posts....

---Quote On:---

"In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".

And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was:

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had really said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?

[...]

Some additional thoughts....

Since you [David S. Lifton] are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)

Also....

Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?....

"...cutting through the wound..."

Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?"

-- DVP; February 28 & early March 2018; Hendricks County, Indiana; USA; North America; Earth; Milky Way

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And around and around in circles we go (again), with Mr. Lifton apparently (again) totally ignoring the following facts that were discussed about a month ago. Quoting from my previous posts....

---Quote On:---

"In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".

And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was:

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had really said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?

[...]

Some additional thoughts....

Since you [David S. Lifton] are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)

Also....

Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?....

"...cutting through the wound..."

Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?"

-- DVP; February 28 & early March 2018; Hendricks County, Indiana; USA; North America; Earth; Milky Way

David Von Pein, Your cut and paste style fails on very important test. I does not pass the "would you want everyone else do what you do?" test. You take advantage of the good sense of others by acting in a way that they do not act. If everyone pasted quotes from their archive of debates there would be no debate.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You say I'm ignoring this or that "fact" and quote me as follows, QUOTE ON:

In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". UNQUOTE

But you, David [Von Pein] are ignoring the fact--the published fact--that on November 23, 1963, Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin, in an article quoting him and which was published on Sunday 11/24/63 that he made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound. Also, you are ignoring the account of Dr. Dave Stewart that Perry told him that he left the wound "inviolate"--which is exactly the same thing that he told Groden when Groden visited him in his New York City office (circa 1977) and showed him the face-up "stare-of-death" autopsy photograph.

What's clear is that Perry said different things to different people on different days.

So the issue is: why is Perry behaving this way, and which account is to be believed?

If the issue was as straightforward as you would like it to be, Perry wouldn't be saying these different things to different people at different times.

I don't understand how you can invoke Perry's statement, on camera, about "cutting through the wound" (made around December 1966, when this interview was filmed) and ignore what he told Jimmy Breslin the day after JFK was murdered (i.e., on 11/23/63, that he made his cut "below" the wound) or what he told Dr. Stewart --according to Stewart--on 11/22/63 (that he left the wound "inviolate"); or what he said in his office to Groden (and a Baltmore reporter) in 1977 (again, "inviolate").

If Perry had been brought before a Federal Grand Jury investigating President Kennedy's murder, how do you think he would have handled all these discrepancies? Do you really believe he could have ignored everything he said on these different occasions, and simply used your selective approach to the record?

And, of course, had there been such a Federal Grand Jury inquiry, perhaps one of the questions would have been: "How do you explain the fact, Dr. Perry, that you told David Lifton on 11/27/1966, that the incision you made was "2 - 3 cm", when the autopsy doctor testified it was "7 - 8 cm"?

And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that you used a knife, while the autopsy report states that the wound had "widely gaping irregular edges"? (See Ch. 11 of B.E.)

And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that when the autopsy was conducted, and Colonel Finck examined this wide gash (i.e., the so-called "tracheotomy incision"), and examined the edges very carefully, he said he could not find any evidence of the previous wound; even going so far as to say, "I don't know why it is not there"?

And perhaps, if Paul O'Connor had been called before such an inquiry, he would have testified to what he told me, both in the telephone interview in August 1979, and then in my filmed interview in June/July 1989, that the situation in the area of the neck was so bad that the esophagus and the trachea were clearly visible and "through" the so-called trach incision, and perhaps one of the Grand Jurors would have asked Perry: "Did you make a wound that was so big that the esophagus and the trachea could be seen through the hole that you made?" And perhaps another of the Grand Jurors, hearing about the fact that the wound was "sutured shut" when he saw it, might ask that Dr. Humes, the autopsy pathologist, be called to testify, and to explain: "Hey, Dr. Humes. . do you mind telling this jury who stitched up this wound? And when that occurred?" And perhaps another question: "Dr. Humes, would you mind explaining why you told the FBI that this suturing was where a trach had been performed, in Dallas? And implying that the suturing was done in Dallas? Were you attempting to mislead the FBI, Dr. Humes?"

So you see, DVP, there's a lot more to this issue than what you are trying to focus on. And its kind of peculiar--even laughable--that you would take one piece of evidence out of an entire array of facts, and just focus on that one datum, and ignore the rest.

No one is denying what Perry said on camera. The issue is why he said so many other things, at other times; and why there's such obvious evidence that this particular wound area was altered, and in a most ugly fashion, before the body arrived at Bethesda.

That's the bigger picture, DVP; and no matter how much you try to focus on just one little tree, there's a whole forest out there.